DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are currently amended and pending.
Applicant Argument Response
The examiner has considered all arguments submitted on 01/28/2026 as outlined on pages 6, concerning the pending claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15. These arguments were answers in relation to the subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as detailed as follows:
Applicant argues that Claims 1, 8, and 15 no longer contain the indefinite expression identified in the Office Action because the claims were amended to remove the challenged language, and therefore the § 112(b) rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner agrees, because the applicant amended Claims 1, 8, and 15 to remove the indefinite term “minimal” and instead recited specific technical features, the § 112(b) rejection is withdrawn as the claims now clearly define their scope.
The examiner has considered all arguments submitted on 01/28/2026, as outlined on pages 6-8, concerning the pending claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15. These arguments were answer in relation to the subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as detailed as follows:
Applicant argues that Claims 1 and 8, wherein the generated link includes a web link, and a web page is automatically connected when the terminal of the patient receives the generated link, are not directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because that amendment allegedly makes the claim directed to interworking hardware operations and non-human activity rather than to an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because, under BRI, Claims 1 and 8, wherein the generated link includes a web link, and a web page is automatically connected when the terminal of the patient receives the generated link, still recite only the manner of delivering questionnaire access, not a specific improvement to computer or network technology. The claims still describe patient-intake, questionnaire delivery, response collection, cumulative storage, and selective provision of records between patients and hospitals, and the specification confirms that focus by stating that patients may easily input and provide responses to electronic medical questionnaires regardless of which hospital they visit and that patients and hospitals may easily look up information (Spec, 0007). Thus, the applicant’s position is not persuasive because the web-link limitation is an additional element for later analysis, but it does not change why the claim as a whole remains an abstract information-exchange scheme. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Claim 1, when the account of the patient does not exist in the server upon identification of the account, generate the account of the patient by combining a first code generated based on the patient's full name, a second code generated based on the patient's phone number, and a third code generated based on an account creation time; allow access from various hospitals to the account of the patient; create a folder for the patient, within the cloud repository; and store the medical questionnaire responses ... in a cumulative manner, and ... extract ... for a period corresponding to the request ... and provide the extracted medical questionnaire responses to the hospital server, integrates the exception into a practical application because it allegedly stores and uses patient information in a cloud in a non-conventional way and, like DDR Holdings, provides a technical solution to an Internet-centric problem.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because, under BRI, Claim 1, the limitation above, means creating or locating a patient account, storing questionnaire information cumulatively in cloud storage, allowing cross-hospital access, and extracting requested records for later provision, which is still record organization and retrieval performed on broadly recited computing components. The specification describes the server, cloud repository, and program implementation in functional terms, including an application server, a computing server, a database server, a file server ... a web server and/or the like (Spec, 0044) and storing questionnaire and personal information in a cloud repository, but does not describe a specific Internet-centered architecture or a technical mechanism that changes how networks, cloud storage, or web systems operate. Thus, the applicant’s position is not persuasive because the cited limitations improve the administrative use of patient information, not computer technology itself, and DDR Holdings is inapposite where the claim does not solve a problem unique to the Internet through a claimed technological solution. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Claim 1, the above features, when combined with the other pending-claim features, recite an inventive concept significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, and that Claim 8 is patent-eligible for the same reasons because it recites similar features.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because, under BRI, Claim 1, the above features, still recite creating and accessing a patient account, cumulatively storing questionnaire information, extracting requested records, and providing them across institutions by server-based computing components, and Claim 8 mirrors that same information-management sequence in method form. The specification describes the supporting technology in general terms, including an application server, a computing server, a database server, a file server ... a web server and/or the like (Spec, 0044), communication modules using standard wireless schemes, and program code stored on a computer-readable medium, which supports the Examiner’s position that the claim uses general computing infrastructure to carry out the abstract workflow rather than a specific technological mechanism that adds significantly more. Thus, the applicant’s position is not persuasive because the cited combination does not change the character of the claims from abstract information management to a technological invention, and the cited Ex Parte Patrick and Hammond does not alter that result on this record. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are patent-eligible at least by dependency from Claims 1 and 8, and further by their additional recited features.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because dependency does not confer eligibility where the parent claim remains directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or an inventive concept. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 only further classify, compare, store, and report the same questionnaire information already identified in Prong One, Claims 7 and 14 only add the non-medical institutional setting, and Claim 15 only places the same method on a computer-readable medium. Thus, the applicant’s position is not persuasive because these claims do not add a technological feature that changes the § 101 analysis. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The examiner has considered all arguments submitted on 01/28/2026, as outlined on pages 8-10, concerning the pending claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15. These arguments were answer in relation to the 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed as follows:
Applicant argue that submitted amended are distinguishes over the cited references.
Examiner is agreed, because amended claim 1 now have limitations enough to be not reasonable obvious in a reasonable number of references, therefore 35 U.S.C 103 is withdraw.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
Step 1:
All claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 satisfy this step 1 initial requirement, as follows:
Machine (Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7): Claim 1, for example, recites “A server for managing electronic medical questionnaire information…” with specific structural components (a communication device and a processor).
Process (Claims 8, 11, 12, and 14): Claim 8 is drafted as “A method for managing electronic medical questionnaire information… comprising: receiving, identifying, generating, providing, receiving, storing, and providing….” This language denotes a sequence of acts and thus defines a process (method).
Manufacture (Claim 15): Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium…” Refer to (Spec. 0018–0019, 0141-0142).
All claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are drawn to one of the four statutory categories. Therefore, we proceed to analyze whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception (Step 2A).
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong, one ask whether claims recite a judicial exception.
The following non-bold claim language refers to abstract ideas (judicial exception); bolded language shows additional elements for further evaluation in prong two and step 2B.
Claim 1
A server for managing electronic medical questionnaire information, comprising:
a communication device configured to receive, from a hospital server, a data packet including personal identification information of a patient and a type of a medical questionnaire to be provided to the patient;
and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to:
identify an account of the patient matching the personal identification information, generate a link including at least one of a personal information collection consent and an electronic medical questionnaire, the link being to be provided to the patient;
provide the generated link to a terminal of the patient, and receive, from the terminal of the patient, medical questionnaire responses for the electronic medical questionnaire, wherein the generated link includes a web link, and a web page is automatically connected when the terminal of the patient receives the generated link;
store the received medical questionnaire responses in a cloud repository corresponding to the account of the patient;
and provide the received medical questionnaire response to the hospital server via the communication device,
and wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the account of the patient does not exist in the server upon identification of the account, generate the account of the patient by combining a first code generated based on the patient's full name, a second code generated based on the patient's phone number, and a third code generated based on an account creation time allow access from various hospitals to the account of the patient;
create a folder for the patient, within the cloud repository and store the medical questionnaire responses received from the terminal of the patient for the electronic medical questionnaire in the cloud repository in a cumulative manner, and when a request for provision of the cumulative medical questionnaire responses for the patient is received from the hospital server, extract the medical questionnaire responses for a period corresponding to the request for provision and provide the extracted medical questionnaire responses to the hospital server.
Under that standard, Claim 1 recites receiving patient identifying information and questionnaire type from a hospital server; identify an account or, if none exists, generate the account from the patient’s name, phone number, and account-creation time to allow cross-hospital access; generate a link including consent and/or the questionnaire; provide the generated link to the patient terminal; receive questionnaire responses; create a folder and store those responses cumulatively in a cloud repository for that account; and, upon request, extract and provide period-corresponding responses to the hospital server. Claim 8 mirrors the same workflow in method form and Claim 15 mirrors it in computer-readable medium form.
This most reasonably falls within certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing interactions and information exchange between patients and hospitals. In substance, Claim 1 organizes patient intake, consent/questionnaire delivery, response collection, cumulative recordkeeping, and selective record provision across institutions, which is reasonably analogous to a clerk who checks or opens a patient file, sends forms, receives completed forms, stores them in the patient folder, and later pulls the requested date-range records for another hospital; the specification is consistent with that reading because it states that patients may easily input and provide responses to electronic medical questionnaires regardless of which hospital they visit and that patients and hospitals may easily look up information (Spec, 0007). Accordingly, Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims analysis:
Claims 4 and 11 recite categorize the medical questionnaire responses according to a medical specialty of the patient and store the medical questionnaire responses in the cumulative manner. Those limitations continue the same abstract information-management scheme by further organizing the collected questionnaire information according to a classification rule and preserving it in the same cumulative record structure. They therefore remain within certain methods of organizing human activity, because they refine how patient questionnaire information is sorted and maintained for institutional use rather than reciting a technological improvement.
Claims 5 and 12 recite receiving responses for a new questionnaire, compare the new medical questionnaire responses with the cumulative medical questionnaire responses to derive differences therebetween, and provide the derived differences to the terminal of the patient. These limitations still operate on the same collected information by reviewing old and new questionnaire content, identifying differences, and reporting the result, which is reasonably analogous to a person comparing two sets of patient forms and marking what changed. They therefore also remain within certain methods of organizing human activity, because they refine the same patient-information exchange and record-tracking scheme rather than changing its character into a technological solution.
Claims 7 and 14 recite that the server is affiliated with a non-medical institution. That language does not alter what the claimed process does; it only states the institutional setting in which the same intake and record-exchange scheme is carried out. It is therefore merely a field-of-use limitation and does not change the Prong One determination.
We proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to evaluate whether additional element integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This step asks whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea apply that exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, such that the claim is more than the abstract idea itself. Here, Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not do so because the additional elements place the same patient-intake and record-exchange scheme on broadly recited server, network, web-link, and storage components without a specific technical mechanism that improves computer, network, or storage technology.
Evaluation of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, additional elements
The additional elements are a server, a communication device, a processor, a hospital server, a patient terminal, a generated link including a web link, automatic connection of a web page when the terminal receives the link, a cloud repository, and, in Claim 15, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium combined with a computer as hardware and storing a program for executing Claim 8.
Server-side computing components
The recitation of the server, the communication device, and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because those elements are invoked at a high level as tools for receiving information, executing the identified workflow, and sending results. The specification describes the server broadly as including a computer, the server 100, and a portable terminal and states that the server device may include an application server, a computing server, a database server, a file server, a game server, a mail server, a proxy server, a web server and/or the like (Spec, 0044); it likewise describes the communication device as components that enable communication with external devices and the processor as at least one processor 110 that performs the aforementioned operations (Spec, 0069). That is not a particular machine or a specific technological mechanism; it is use of computing components merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which does not show an improvement under MPEP § 2106.05(a) and § 2106.05(f).
Network endpoints and storage
The recitation of the hospital server, the patient terminal, and the cloud repository also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Those elements identify where the questionnaire information comes from, where it goes, and where it is kept, but the claim does not recite a particular network protocol, retrieval technique, security control, or storage architecture that solves a technical problem in computer systems. These are data-exchange and storage functions that operate under the same abstract information-management scheme, and using the scheme across hospitals or in a cloud environment merely places it in a technological setting. MPEP § 2106.05(g) and § 2106.05(h) therefore weigh against integration.
Web-link access feature
The recitation that the generated link includes a web link and that a web page is automatically connected when the terminal receives the link likewise does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This feature specifies how the patient is taken to the consent/questionnaire content, but it does not recite a particular interface architecture, browser control technique, or network improvement; it still only delivers the same intake content more directly. The feature concerns access to the form rather than an improvement in computer functionality. This is therefore no more than implementation detail for carrying out the abstract interaction, not a technological solution, under MPEP § 2106.05(a) and § 2106.05(f).
Computer-readable recording medium
The recitation in Claim 15 of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, combined with a computer as hardware and storing a program for executing Claim 8, also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It merely places the same method into software form. The specification states that the program may include code written in C, C++, JAVA, or a machine language readable (spec 0140) by a processor, and that the stored medium refers to a medium storing data semi-permanently, which confirms storage of instructions on a program medium rather than a claimed improvement in how memory or program execution works. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a) and § 2106.05(f), that does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
When viewed as a whole, the combination of these elements remains a client-server, web-link, and cloud-storage arrangement for carrying out the same administrative intake and record-exchange scheme identified in Prong One. The claims do not recite a technical solution comparable to an improved protocol, a particularized server architecture, a new storage mechanism, or a specific interface technique unique to computers; instead, they use general computing components to collect, store, extract, and provide questionnaire information. The additional elements, therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The remaining dependent claims do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14 do not change the Prong Two analysis. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 only further classify, compare, store, and report the same questionnaire information already identified in Prong One, and Claims 7 and 14 only add the non-medical institutional setting. Thus, these dependent claims add no technological mechanism that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
When viewed as a whole, the combination of the independent and dependent claims still does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims only narrow the same information-management scheme or add an institutional setting, and therefore do not change the Prong Two result.
Because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B asks whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Here, they do not, because the specification presents the computing, communication, storage, and program-medium features as general computer components and communication arrangements used for their expected functions, while the remaining dependent limitations only narrow the same abstract information-management scheme.
Evaluation of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, additional elements
The additional elements evaluated here are a server, a communication device, a processor, a hospital server, a patient terminal, a generated link including a web link, automatic connection of a web page when the terminal receives the link, a cloud repository, and, in Claim 15, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium combined with a computer as hardware and storing a program for executing Claim 8.
Server-side computing components
The specification presents the claimed server, communication device, and processor as general computing components rather than as specialized technology. It states that the server may include a computer, the server 100, and a portable terminal and that the server device may include an application server, a computing server, a database server, a file server, a game server, a mail server, a proxy server, a web server and/or the like (spec, 0044); it further states that the communication device may include modules enabling communication with external devices and that the wireless communication module may support WiFi, GSM, CDMA, WCDMA, UMTS, TDMA, LTE, 4G, 5G, and 6G (spec, 0045). The processor likewise is described as working with memory storing data for an algorithm or program and as at least one processor 110 that performs the aforementioned operations (spec, 0069). These disclosures show components used for their expected receiving, transmitting, and executing functions, which supports MPEP § 2106.05(d) and § 2106.05(f), not an inventive concept.
Network endpoints, storage, and web-link delivery
The specification also presents the hospital server, the patient terminal, the cloud repository, the web link, and automatic web-page connection as ordinary parts of the service architecture. It states that the link provided by the server 100 may be a web link, and a web page may be automatically connected when the patient receives the link on the terminal (spec. 0111); it states that the processor receives responses from the patient terminal, stores them in the cloud repository, and upon request extracts period-corresponding responses for the hospital server; and it states that the server may store service data, including questionnaire responses and patient personal identification information, in the cloud repository. These elements do not contribute a non-ordinary technical feature beyond the abstract workflow; they simply move, store, and present the same information. Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), § 2106.05(f), and § 2106.05(g), they do not amount to significantly more.
Computer-readable recording medium
The specification describes the computer-readable recording medium of Claim 15 as ordinary program storage. It states that the method may be implemented as a program executed in combination with the server hardware, that the program may include code in C, C++, JAVA, or a machine language, and that the stored medium refers to a medium that stores data semi-permanently rather than for a very short time. This disclosure supports the conclusion that Claim 15 places the same abstract method on an ordinary program medium and does not add significantly more under MPEP § 2106.05(d) and § 2106.05(f).
As a whole, the ordered combination of these additional elements still amounts to using ordinary server, communication, terminal, web, cloud, and storage components to execute the same patient-intake and record-exchange scheme identified in Prong One. The combination does not recite a specialized architecture or non-ordinary technical arrangement that changes the character of the claim from abstract information management to a technological invention.
Dependent Claims Analysis
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14 do not add an inventive concept. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 only further narrow the same abstract information-management scheme already identified in Prong One, and Claims 7 and 14 only add the non-medical institutional setting.
As a whole, the combination of the independent and dependent claims still does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims rely on general computing and networking components described in the specification as ordinary service infrastructure, and the dependent claims either further narrow the same information-management rules or add only an institutional setting.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Free from Prior Art
Here are the close prior arts disclosed in the searching history:
Kim US 20240185967 A1 that provided patient-customized electronic medical questionnaire system, a medical questionnaire terminal using same, and a medical questionnaire method, the patient-customized electronic medical questionnaire (abstract), that also teaches cloud accumulative repository (par. 0031-0032, 0071, claim 11-claim 12)
Tambasco (US 10607727 B2) teaches URL web link and patient portal with user name, phone number (Col.14, ll. 53-Col. 15, ll. 15) and Shamsutdinov (US 20190251198 A1) teaches the creation profile time (Shamsutdinov, par. 0135-0136).
Tambasco teaches the creation profile logic whether does not have an account in Col. 14, ll. 25-53.
Gordon (US 20070156032 A1) teaches, a date-sorted list of data tables screen and displayed data the physician can select a particular patient and/or an assessment date(s), par. 0068, 0076, 0084, 0088-0091).
Though many aspect of the independent claims are disclosed in the prior art, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disparate features into the invention of the instant claims. In particular, it would not have been obvious to when the account of the patient does not exist in the server upon identification of the account… a folder for the patient, within the cloud repository and store the medical questionnaire responses received from the terminal… the request for provision and provide the extracted medical questionnaire responses to the hospital server.
Accordingly, the prior arts, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious all the features of independent claim 1 as their dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0409. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1800.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA DAMIAN RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights